[1] Where a flood accident occurred in the road construction section constructed by Gap corporation, etc., and the State compensated the victim Eul who suffered the damage, the case affirming the judgment below that the State and Gap corporation, etc. bear joint tort liability against Eul in light of all the circumstances, and the State which was not negligent in the occurrence of the accident in the internal indemnity relation can claim full amount of compensation for Gap corporation, etc.

[2] In a case where there is no negligence on the part of the joint tortfeasor who is the joint tortfeasor, the nature of the joint tortfeasor's liability (=non-joint and several liability)

[1] In a case where a flood accident occurred in the road construction section constructed by Gap corporation, etc., and the State compensated for damages to Eul who suffered damage, the case affirming the judgment below which held that Gap corporation, etc. can claim full amount of compensation with Gap corporation, etc. as the State is liable for joint tort on the ground that the error in construction and management of Gap company, etc. and the defect in the construction and management of the public structures of the State that installs and manages roads in the construction section of the construction section of the construction section of the corporation Gap company, etc. in light of all the circumstances, and since the flood accident occurred, it is difficult to view that there was any negligence

[2] In cases where there are two or more other joint-offenders who are liable to compensate for damages against one of the joint-offenders, it is reasonable to regard their obligation to compensate for damages as a divided liability according to their respective share of liability, unless there are special circumstances. However, in cases where there is no internal share of liability, i.e., there is no negligence on the part of the joint-offenders who are the right to compensate, it is reasonable to regard the obligation to compensate

[1] Article 760 of the Civil Code, Article 5 (2) of the State Compensation Act / [2] Articles 425 and 760 of the Civil Code

[2] Supreme Court Decision 2003Da24147 decided Oct. 13, 2005 (Gong2005Ha, 1779)

Republic of Korea (Government Law Firm, Attorneys Kim Jong-hwan et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Handong Construction Co., Ltd. (Law Firm Barun, Attorneys Jeong Jin-jin et al., Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Korean Technology Development Corporation

Seoul High Court Decision 2010Na37310 decided June 2, 2011

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Regarding ground of appeal No. 1

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the court below acknowledged the following facts. Since the flood accident of this case was caused by competition between the plaintiff, Youngnam Construction Co., Ltd., the contractor of the road work of this case, and Chungcheong Construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter "the defendant, etc.")'s duty of care to install various facilities for preventing flood damage caused by concentrated rain or to secure drainage in accordance with the provisions of the special specifications for the road work of this case and the details of the supervision on development of technology of Korea Co., Ltd., the court below held that the plaintiff and the defendant, etc. are liable to compensate the non-party, who is the owner of the road work of this case, for damages caused by concentrated rain in order to prevent flood damage caused by concentrated rain, since the plaintiff's construction and management of the road of this case, which is the contractor of the road work of this case, was not responsible for the damages caused by the plaintiff's negligence, which is the owner of the road work of this case, and thus, the plaintiff and the non-party, etc. are not liable to compensate for damages caused by the plaintiff's damages.

In light of the records, the judgment of the court below is just, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the liability of public structures or in violation of the rules of evidence.

2. Regarding ground of appeal No. 2

In cases where there are two or more other joint-offenders who are liable to compensate for one of the joint-offenders, it is reasonable to view their obligations to compensate for damages as a divided liability according to their respective share of liability, unless there are special circumstances. However, in cases where there is no negligence on the part of the joint-offenders who are the right to compensate for damages, that is, where there is no internal share of liability, it is reasonable to view that the relationship between the obligation to compensate for damages and the obligation to compensate for damages as a non-joint-liability relationship (see Supreme Court Decision 2003Da24147, Oct.

In the same purport, the court below held that the defendant and the other joint venture companies are liable to pay damages to the plaintiff, and that the plaintiff is liable to pay 660,698,203 won and damages for delay to the non-party, on the ground that there is no negligence on the part of the plaintiff in the internal relationship with the defendant, and the other joint venture companies are jointly and severally liable. The court below did not err by misapprehending the legal principles as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal.

3. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant who has lost. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Park Poe-dae (Presiding Justice)